Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyoorius (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. For more info on appropriate sources, see Reliable sources. We always avoid sources that repackage press releases and that are not published from outlets with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. czar 00:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyoorius
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was previously deleted through AfD as "Sources found were not considered to be independent significant coverage." I don't see any changes in the article, sources are still non reliable, announcements, interviews, and do not add up to establishing notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this notice - a few days ago I went ahead and re-posted this Kyoorius article without many changes because I wanted feedback on how to bring the article to its bare-bones of necessary and reliable information. Which specific sources do you think are unreliable and should (along with the corresponding information) be removed? Bagabondo (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like further participation, and also for the nominator to answer the question given
 * Delete The sources that are significantly about this organization are not sufficiently independent to satisfy WP:GNG and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly the article is in no better condition sourcing wise then when it got deleted the first time. Really, it shouldn't have been recreated. Or at least it should have been and first and gone through the approvel process when it was actually up to standards. I don't think the nominator should answer the question either. As its obvious by looking at the article and this is totally on the person who recreated it. Although, in their favor a lot of time has passed since the original AfD, but it just doesn't seem to have been enough. Adamant1 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.